|
New Blueprints
for China's Skyline
It's not
about pagoda-shaped skyscrapers, says Beijing architect Yung Ho
Chang. It's about buildings that affect people's daily lives
12/23/2005
By Reena
Jana

In the frenzy of China's current building
boom, it's easy to forget that 12 years ago, no private architectural
firms even existed in the country. In 1993, Yung Ho Chang opened
the first: Atelier FCJZ. The initials stand for Feichang Jianzhu,
or "unusual architecture." Today, he splits his time between
his office in Beijing and MIT, where he was named head of the architecture
department in 2005.
His bi-continental professional life is reflected
in much of his work, which blends traditional Chinese forms like
the courtyard house (a home with an outdoor living space bordered
on all sides by walls) and boxy, streamlined structures that recall
the modernist designs of American architects like Philip Johnson
and Frank Lloyd Wright.
FOREIGN DESIGNERS
Chang has steadily contributed to the development of the new 21st-century
Chinese landscape, with buildings like the sprawling residential
project Villa Shizilin located outside of Beijing and the corporate
headquarters for Chinese software company Ufida, also in Beijing.
Recently, Chang spoke with BusinessWeek Online
reporter Reena Jana about fresh directions in contemporary Chinese
architecture, the wave of buildings -- now under construction --
by famous Western architects in China, and how the training of both
American and Chinese architects can improve. Edited excerpts from
their conversation follow:
Do you believe a new style is emerging
that defines contemporary Chinese architecture?
Contemporary Chinese architecture should reflect the economy we
have today, which is global. This "global" characteristic
is part of the new lifestyle we have, now that we are participating
in an open market.
Yet, on the other hand, to talk about "Chinese
architecture" is to talk about something local and original.
I'm not sure "balance" is the right word to describe the
delicate combination between the global and the local that we're
shooting for in my practice.
We find traditional Chinese architecture interesting.
For a while, people around the world generally associated "Chinese"
with the traditional and "Western" with the modern. We
started to see that it really doesn't have to be a divide or opposition
between them. So for the past two to three years, we have been working
on reinterpreting the essence of Chinese architectural forms.
Some supertall skyscrapers feature adapted
traditional forms. What do you make of these large-scale attempts
at iconic Chinese commercial architecture?
Taipei 101 -- which is in Taipei -- and Shanghai's Jin Mao Tower
are both trying to interpret the traditional pagoda structure as
giant office buildings. But that's not the only way to arrive at
a "Chinese" form of contemporary architecture, and these
buildings don't relate to their cities that much.
What I'm saying is, you can't build a city
with lots of Taipei 101s or Jin Maos. They're meant to be one-of-a
kind structures. It's very difficult for them to accomplish anything
other than provide an iconic image.
The engineering aspects of these buildings
are interesting and challenging. But I think the very important
issue of how these buildings deal with the space around them is
sometimes overlooked. That said, they are important examples of
contemporary Chinese architecture -- although the majority of typical
Chinese office buildings don't look like them.
A lot of daring buildings by international
"star" architects -- like Rem Koolhaas and Herzog and
de Meuron -- are also popping up in Beijing and Shanghai. What political
and practical effect will they have on China's urban landscape?
Buildings like the CCTV tower in Beijing, designed by Rem Koolhaas,
or the Guangzhou Opera House, by Zaha Hadid, will have bigger impact
outside of China than within. These new buildings by Western architects
are about sending a signal. What they say is "China is open
to architectural innovation." They're very positive in that
way.
But cities are made of all kinds of buildings.
I'm not sure there is a civic significance to these new buildings,
beyond their role as iconic images. They don't have much effect
on people's daily lives.
You've taught architecture at Peking University
and now at MIT. Do you use the same approach to training architects
in the U.S. that you did in China?
There's something fundamental in my thinking: Architecture is a
social practice. American architectural education is heavily theory-oriented.
It's a kind of philosophical and metaphysical practice. In the States,
I'd like to see a theory built on the physicality and materiality
of making buildings. It's an urgent issue in the U.S., and architects
need to fight back and to make architecture relevant in society.
Most Americans don't use the services of architects
directly and don't benefit from their theoretical knowledge. When
I was a student and teacher in the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s,
architects were reading and talking about French philosophers like
Jacques Derrida -- ideas that won't help architects reach out to
middle-class people who will live and work in the buildings they
design.
Do Chinese architectural students and architects
have similar dilemmas?
In China, we don't have the same problem. It's the reverse. Generally,
we make new buildings with very little thinking on the part of architects,
because the common perception is that buildings are just eventually
constructed by the construction team. As a result, there really
is not much substance behind many modern Chinese buildings.
At Peking University, where I used to teach,
I made sure that students did hands-on projects. At MIT, I ask students
to do lots of making, building, and fabrication, too, although everyone
is interested in the more advanced technologies of computer renderings.
But the ideas needed to design a great building
are the same as they were for centuries. American and Chinese architects
need to learn how to make buildings. And there are social concerns,
too. We need to make real buildings for real cities.
|